What Did Jesus Really Look Like? Article Provides Some Information

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the confusion is that you’ve not understood the definition of “swarthy,” which literally means “dark-skinned.”
 
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about the others I mentioned?
 
JulianN said:
The shroud would be speculative. The Veil was allegedly revealed to St. Veronica. Neither is authoritative nor required to believe, so no “case” needs to be made.
Click to expand...
Yes this is true to the chagrin of?
 
Gigantals said:
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about the others I mentioned?
Click to expand...
I have not read as much about the others, but I have an inherent distrust of relics that claim to go back to Christ. For example, it seems like there are five or six objects that each claim to be the Veil. It has been famously said that if every supposed fragment of the true cross were gathered together you would have enough wood to build a house. I don’t find any of these objects to be necessary to faith, and I find most of them skeptical, at best, so I don’t put faith in any of them. I have nothing against those that do, but that is simply how I see it.
 
JulianN said:
Why would it be to anyone’s chagrin?
Click to expand...
Some Cradle Catholics for example. They believe it is the actual shroud that covered Jesus. You tell them otherwise, and they look at you like your the devil and cross themselves.
 
Hmm, really? The generalized culture of the time in Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc., especially with the 300 years preceding the time of Jesus’ birth with the rise of a Hellenic-Roman empire, and the ethnicity of the Jewish people of Jerusalem etc would most certainty not have been black or Asian predominantly; the predominant racial strain would have been white.

Even the census forms today have Egyptians and Lebanese, for example, categorized as ‘white’.

I’ll state this as my opinion only, but it strikes ME that, for Jesus to be born where He was and when He was, while the predominant ‘race’ He was would have been white, considering that Jerusalem is located in the Mediterranean areas, where white, black, and Asian people at the time more or less ‘came together’ it is entirely logical that there would have been both black and Asian ancestors in Jesus’ earthly family tree. And what could be more appropriate for the One who is brother to us all to contain in His earthly body the RACES of us all?
 
Last edited:
He would have been arab.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Does Jesus here look white to you? This is the reconstruction of his approximate looks by professionals.

Maybe its just me, but I identify a lot closer with this image of Jesus than the usual ones.
 
Last edited:
A reconstruction. Have you seen the image of the Divine Mercy? The image is quite similar.

Jesus was a Jewish person. Jew and Arab are not synonymous terms.

Since I happen to have a friend who was born in Lebanon and Another from Jordan, both of whom identify themselves as white and whose complexion and features are femininized but still similar to the image you gave, I stand by my statement as well as the final opinion I gave; Jesus, while predominantly Caucasian in race, most probably had ancestors who were Asian and/or black as well. I’m white and I have remote (quite remote, we’re talking 6 generations back) ancestors who were native Americans (you’ll forgive me for not stating which tribal group). I don’t claim to be Native American even if some of my distant kin were though. And I don’t think that most Arab people would identify themselves as black as opposed to white. Eurasian perhaps?
 
RepetantCatholic said:
I find atheism at it’s core necessitates Social Darwinism and other racist views, while placing an unearned interest in intellect and a sanctimonious idol worship of science, which any common sense, reasonable person would find oppressive.
Click to expand...
Please don’t say this sort of thing about me.
 
PeterT said:
What I do know is that in February 1931 Jesus appeared to Saint Faustina looking like this:
Click to expand...
She could have embellished on the facial features.
But Jesus could have done an “Oh God” thing with her.
Also we are not required to believe Faustina on anything because it is Private Revelation.
 
Last edited:
RepetantCatholic said:
Swarthy typically connotes not good looking,
Click to expand...
" Here are 13 films that illustrate his range, durability and swarthy magnetism." NYT, Feb 2020, speaking of Kirk Douglas in “Spartacus”.

Swarthy does not mean ugly, it means dark (skin, eyes, hair).
 
Fair enough. There are numerous copies of the Veil of Veronica with the original among them somewhere.

As for the Cross, according to the eyewitnesses, it was like feeding the 5000. Pieces of it would grow back when they were cut off. But that is admittedly a little hard to believe. I think it’s more likely they were Third-Class Relics if the True Cross. Touch a piece of wood to it, and it becomes a Third-Class Relic. Break that into pieces and sell it, then repeat.
 
Jesus was tall, strong build, had light hair, or blondish, and blue/greenish eyes. His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Her Father, also had the same hair and eyes.
 
Last edited:
I can’t get a Google search to show those images. Always brown hair, never blond. I think that cliche is kind of worn. People, of all countries, tend to portray Jesus as themselves. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top